Bilingual idiosyncratic dimensions of language attitudes

Abstract

The goal of this study is to identify new dimensions of language attitudes to allow for both their multidimensionality and possible language-specificity stemming from local sociolinguistic environments. Adopting a two-step methodology comprising (1) elicitation of adjectives in group interviews and (2) employment of the semantic differential technique within a direct approach, this article demonstrates that language attitudes of bilinguals may be made up of a number of latent dimensions that go beyond those found in previous academic studies. In particular, Italian English bilinguals in Australia rate their languages according to three idiosyncratic dimensions only partly ascertained in the literature: attractiveness, superiority and efficiency. These three dimensions, emerged through rotated principal component analysis, reveal the significance of bilingualism in attitude formation. Moreover, this study provides insights on language attitudes as constructions avulsed from their contextualised manifestations and indeed accounts for both their language-specific singularity and intrinsic multidimensionality.

Keywords:

• bilingualism
• language attitudes
• dimension
• multidimensionality
• locality

Notes

1. In the present study, the words component and dimension are used interchangeably.

2. Considerations regarding the possible influence of the moderator are provided in the discussion.

3. Full account of how the semantic differential was designed will be given in Study 2.

4. The grouping of these adjectives will be verified in Study 2.

5. While statement–agreement scales are a well-known method to elicit attitudes directly, semantic differential has been used mainly within indirect methodologies, and only in very recent times is starting to expand (Schoel et al. 2013).

6. Examples of background questions:

1. Age _____

2. Gender M – F

3. Country of birth _______________.If not born in Australia, please indicate your age when you moved here_______.

4. What is your highest level of education? Please, circle the appropriate answer No school – Primary school – Junior High school – Senior High school – University

5. How many years of schooling (primary school through university) did you have in:Italy (in Italian): Primary ______, Secondary______, Tertiary ______.In Australia or another country (in English): Primary ____, Secondary____, Tertiary ____.

6. Please indicate on average what percentage of the time you are currently exposed to each language in a normal week. (Your percentage should add up to 100%)1._____________ ____% 2._____________ ____% 3._____________ ____% 4._____________ ____%

7. Subsequent ANOVA confirmed that the language of the questionnaire did not have an impact on the ratings, as explained below.

8. The determination of the positive side of the scale for coding purposes was almost always obvious. The exception was abstract–contextual, which is less obvious at first sight, but in light of the focus group, discussion ‘contextual’ was considered the positive of the two. However, this coding system does not impinge on the alignment of factors in principal component analysis, that is, even if the values coded were inverted, the same factors would emerge.

9. The label Efficiency alone has been deemed more suitable for the description of this dimension if compared with the one used in the previous grouping (clarity/efficiency).

10. Nevertheless, further oblique rotation with Oblimin shows that the factors themselves are not highly correlated (correlation coefficients between 0.81 and 0.24) even when non-orthogonal rotations are employed.

11. However, this limitation is mitigated by the fact that the selection of adjectives was operated considering not only the focus group but also previous research and piloting.